I v The State of Western Australia

The appellant appealed against their convictions for multiple sexual offences against a child, brought by the State of Western Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in not discharging a juror who had prior knowledge of the complainant's family and had disclosed a preconceived opinion about the matter. The court had to determine if the trial judge should have questioned the juror further and if the failure to do so resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice. Another issue was the admissibility of a witness's testimony that was impeached in cross-examination by showing a contradiction with a prior statement. The court had to consider whether the earlier consistent statement should have been admissible and if the cross-examination was unfair to the intellectually impaired witness.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in not discharging the juror, as the juror's prior knowledge of the complainant's family and preconceived opinion created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The trial judge's approach to questioning the juror was inadequate, and the failure to discharge the juror led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court held that the earlier consistent statement should have been admitted to counter the imputation of fabrication made during cross-examination. The intellectually impaired witness was unfairly treated by not having both prior statements put to them. The court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, the convictions quashed, and a retrial ordered, leaving the ultimate decision on a retrial to the Director of Public Prosecutions due to the appellant already serving a significant proportion of their sentence.

The court's final orders included allowing the appeal, quashing the convictions, and ordering a retrial. The decision on whether to proceed with a retrial rested with the Director of Public Prosecutions, considering the appellant's significant time already served in custody. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring a fair trial for all parties involved, particularly in cases involving vulnerable witnesses and potential juror bias.